GOV/MIL Main "Second Impeachment" Thread

marsh

On TB every waking moment

House impeachment manager praises Pence: He 'showed us what it means to be an American'
"Vice President Pence stood his ground like our other brave officials stood their ground," Rep. Lieu said.

video on website .49 min

By Nicholas Ballasy
Updated: February 10, 2021 - 4:43pm

California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu, one of the House impeachment managers, on Wednesday praised former Vice President Mike Pence for certifying the presidential election results despite former President Trump's public criticism of Pence.

"Thankfully, Vice President Pence stood his ground like our other brave officials stood their ground to refuse the president and fulfill his duty on January 6, even after the capital was attacked and even after he was personally targeted, even after his family was targeted. Vice President Pence stood strong and certified the election," Lieu said when he presented on the second day of the impeachment trial.

"Vice President Pence showed us what it means to be an American, what it means to show courage. He put his country, his oath, his values and his morals above the will of one man. The president has tried everything in his power to seize seize, everything in his attempt to seize power from the rightful victor of election," he added.

During his presentation at the trial, Lieu played a clip of Trump saying he won't like Pence as much if he doesn't come through on Jan. 6 when the presidential election results were going to be counted during a joint session of Congress.

"I hope Mike Pence comes through for us. I have to tell you. I hope that our great vice president, our great vice president, comes through for us but he's a great guy. If he doesn't come through, I won't like him quite as much," Trump said on Jan. 5.

On Jan. 6, Trump said, "Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us and if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country."

[COMMENT: No, Mike Pence has his eye on the Presidency. Obviously he is affiliated with the establishment branch of the Repub Uni-Party. He likely felt he did not get the kudos he deserved for his COVID work and that Trump's proclivity for the economic side undermined and deflected from his message to "stop the spread." He needed to kick away from Trump to divorce himself from the loyal sidekick image. He seems a bitter little man and a back stabber, but, of course I never liked the guy.]
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Democrats Argue at Impeachment Trial: Capitol Riot Wasn’t Caused by ‘One Speech’

3,542
Eric Swalwell (congress.gov via Getty)
congress.gov via Getty
JOEL B. POLLAK10 Feb 20212,023

Democrats argued Wednesday that the Capitol riot was not the result of “one speech,” despite the fact that the article of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives last month claimed that President Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 incited it.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), one of the House impeachment managers, spoke during the second day of argument in the impeachment trial of the former president, arguing that the riot came after weeks of Trump’s criticism of the 2020 election.

“This attack did not come from one speech, and it didn’t happen by accident. The evidence shows clearly that this mob was provoked over many months by Donald J. Trump,” Castro said.

The argument appeared to undermine the central basis of the impeachment, which is that Trump’s speech on January 6 at the Ellipse specifically incited the mob at the Capitol.

The House made that claim without noting evidence that the mob had already begun storming the Capitol, more than a mile away, before Trump finished speaking, and despite the fact that he told his supporters in his speech to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”

Democrats spent little time on Trump’s words in the speech, arguing instead that he had deliberately signaled to his supporters to attack the Capitol after stoking claims of election fraud for months.

Castro’s fellow House impeachment manager, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) — who prosecuted the case despite an ongoing scandal involving his relationship with an alleged Chinese spy — actually admitted that Trump really “believed” the election was stolen.

Like his colleague, Swalwell argued that the riot was not caused by one speech alone: “This was not one speech, not one tweet. It was dozens and in rapid succession with specific details.”

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin kicked off the prosecution by claiming that Trump’s lawyers believed the former president’s behavior had been “totally appropriate.” (They never made such a claim.)

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) claimed, without evidence, that Trump ordered his supporters to invade “this very chamber.”

Castro also told the Senate that Trump ought to have accepted losing an election — though Castro himself was among the Democrats pushing the conspiracy theory that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win in 2016.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

GOP Sen. Cramer: House Impeachment Managers Outperformed Trump’s Legal Team on Constitutionality of Trial

TRENT BAKER10 Feb 2021146

View: https://youtu.be/pbmPq8UT4ic
6:27 min

During a Wednesday appearance on Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) weighed in on the previous day’s Senate impeachment proceedings of former President Donald Trump.

Cramer acknowledged that the House impeachment managers made a better case in favor of the constitutionality of impeaching a former president than Trump’s legal team, but said there is a “very steep” hill to climb to prove there is “criminal liability” for inciting an insurrection.

“The president’s team did not make as good an argument against it as House managers made for the constitutional point of Senate jurisdictions. However, even at that, the president’s lawyers made an adequate case,” Cramer told host Maria Bartiromo. “While not as flashy and perhaps as complete as the managers, it was still an adequate case, so I stand by that. I do think that you know in terms of the hill that the managers have to climb is still very steep and it’s very high — not just because, you know, at least 44 of us think this is unconstitutional exercise altogether, but because I think that the line between, you know criminal liability, and firing up a crowd is you know a pretty tough, I think, cause and effect to make for insurrection.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Jason Chaffetz Wonders if Democrats’ ‘Manipulated Video’ of January 6 Protest Violated House Rule

video on website 13:52 min

HANNAH BLEAU10 Feb 2021608

Former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) raised a pointed question about the deceptively edited video House impeachment managers played during the first day of the Senate impeachment trial, pointing to page 34 of House Rules, which focuses on “dissemination by electronic means, including by social media, of any image, video, or audio file that has been distorted or manipulated with the intent to mislead the public.”

Lead impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who objected to the certification of the election results in 2017, introduced the video — which depicted cherry-picked clips of the January 6 Capitol protest — on the first day of the impeachment trial during the debate on the constitutionality of the proceedings.

“What will the January exception mean to future generations if you grant it? I’ll show you,” he said, followed by the montage that attempted to make it appear as if former President Trump encouraged supporters to commit lawless deeds at the U.S. Capitol.

“Go to page 34 of House Rules. Did the manipulated video violate the House Rules?” Chaffetz, a Fox News contributor, asked:

1612997635787.png

Page 34 of the House Rules features a section on the dissemination of manipulated media, which reads:
The Committee on Ethics is directed to report to the House, not later than December 31, 2021, any recommended amendments to the Code of Official Conduct, as well as any accompanying regulations, intended to address the circumstances and instances, if any, for which a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may be subject to discipline for the dissemination by electronic means, including by social media, of any image, video, or audio file that has been distorted or manipulated with the intent to mislead the public.
That argument among many GOP critics is that Democrats attempted to make it seem as if former President Trump directly incited the lawlessness in the video. Democrats deliberately left out key parts of his speech, including his plea for supporters to “peacefully and patriotically” make their voices heard.

The Democrats’ montage, rather, showed Trump telling the crowd, “We’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down…to the Capitol.” The montage also showed people shouting, “Let’s take the Capitol!” as protesters attempted to breach barriers.

“President Trump ends his speech and urges his mob to move toward the Capitol” Democrats asserted in the video, which cut to Trump saying:
So we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give…our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re try–going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
U.S. Senate

Not once during Trump’s speech did he encourage violence or lawlessness at the U.S. Capitol. Furthermore, Trump repeatedly called for peace on social media as the events unfolded that day.

“I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!” he wrote shortly after 3 p.m. that day, later urging protesters to go home “with love & in peace.”
 

Troke

On TB every waking moment

House impeachment manager praises Pence: He 'showed us what it means to be an American'
"Vice President Pence stood his ground like our other brave officials stood their ground," Rep. Lieu said.

video on website .49 min

By Nicholas Ballasy
Updated: February 10, 2021 - 4:43pm

California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu, one of the House impeachment managers, on Wednesday praised former Vice President Mike Pence for certifying the presidential election results despite former President Trump's public criticism of Pence.

"Thankfully, Vice President Pence stood his ground like our other brave officials stood their ground to refuse the president and fulfill his duty on January 6, even after the capital was attacked and even after he was personally targeted, even after his family was targeted. Vice President Pence stood strong and certified the election," Lieu said when he presented on the second day of the impeachment trial.

"Vice President Pence showed us what it means to be an American, what it means to show courage. He put his country, his oath, his values and his morals above the will of one man. The president has tried everything in his power to seize seize, everything in his attempt to seize power from the rightful victor of election," he added.

During his presentation at the trial, Lieu played a clip of Trump saying he won't like Pence as much if he doesn't come through on Jan. 6 when the presidential election results were going to be counted during a joint session of Congress.

"I hope Mike Pence comes through for us. I have to tell you. I hope that our great vice president, our great vice president, comes through for us but he's a great guy. If he doesn't come through, I won't like him quite as much," Trump said on Jan. 5.

On Jan. 6, Trump said, "Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us and if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country."

[COMMENT: No, Mike Pence has his eye on the Presidency. Obviously he is affiliated with the establishment branch of the Repub Uni-Party. He likely felt he did not get the kudos he deserved for his COVID work and that Trump's proclivity for the economic side undermined and deflected from his message to "stop the spread." He needed to kick away from Trump to divorce himself from the loyal sidekick image. He seems a bitter little man and a back stabber, but, of course I never liked the guy.]
Doesn't anybody on this forum ever think past the next 24 hours.? If Pence had done what Trump seems to have wanted, he would set the precedent that the VP decides who the next POTUS will be. You sure you want that?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Lindsey Graham Doesn’t Think Trump Was Enraged by Impeachment Trial Opening Defense

6
In this Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2020, file photo, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., appears before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, to examine the FBI Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Graham, once a biting critic of President Donald Trump, the three-term South Carolina Republican on …
Stefani Reynolds/Pool Photo via AP
JOSHUA CAPLAN10 Feb 202160

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Wednesday that he did not sense that former President Donald Trump was angry with his defense team’s opening arguments during a phone conversation about the Senate’s impeachment trial.

The Hill reports:
Graham said Trump didn’t appear to be frustrated with the opening arguments, even though CNN reported Tuesday that he was close to screaming at the television while watching his lawyer Bruce Castor deliver a meandering opening statement.
“Well, not, no, not particularly,” Graham said when asked if he sensed frustration on the part of the former commander in chief. “We mostly talked about the vote, and I said we had 44 people saying it’s not constitutional.”
Graham also said that he reassured Trump that the Senate will acquit on a charge of inciting last month’s riot at the U.S. Capitol, which left five people dead, including a Capitol Police officer.

“I think his team will do better, can do better,” he added. “I reinforced to the president, the case is over. It’s just a matter of getting the final verdict now.”

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Trump was “furious” while watching his lawyer Bruce Castor Jr. deliver his opening argument after House Democrat Impeachment Managers delivered emotional opening remarks. Politico also reported that the former president “grew increasingly frustrated” as opening arguments continued, according to people familiar with his thinking.

Not only was Trump said to be unimpressed with his lawyers, so were some Republican senators such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

“I don’t think the lawyers did the most effective job,” Cruz said.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said Lead Impeachment Manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) “did a superior job.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Doesn't anybody on this forum ever think past the next 24 hours.? If Pence had done what Trump seems to have wanted, he would set the precedent that the VP decides who the next POTUS will be. You sure you want that?
No Troke. The basic issue here was that the US Constitution places the making of law for election of the President with the State Legislatures. Over the years, some states, through process, delegated the authority of certifying electors to the Governor and Secretary of State in some cases.

In Wisconsin, for instance, the court ruled that about 200,000 (?) voters had claimed indefinitely confined states in contravention with the law. The legislature had suspended for the year and they couldn't get it back in special session to address the issue and alter the Electors.

The inability to get a special session called, (often requiring the Governor,) to change the electors was a common theme. As a result, the Republicans also sent a slate of official competing Electors to Congress.

In Georgia, you had the Senate Judiciary hearing hold hearings and made findings of fraud in a report. The Governor and Secretary of State had unconstitutionally changed the election law through a consent agreement in the Stacey Abrams suit. The Governor refused to call the legislature back in session to change the electors.

Most of these states sent competing electors. They wanted Pence to send the Electors back to the states, forcing a special session, so that the States could call a session and sort it out as the US Constitution prescribes.

What Ted Cruz was suggesting was a special committee, which had been used previously in history, to examine the issues of fraud and come up with recommendations.

What Pence did was run a bulldozer through it clearing a Biden win, despite the real evidence of massive fraud. What this does beyond the next 24 hours, is make it nearly impossible to correct the election fraud. (The Dems are ramming through an election bill that makes mail in etc. permanent.) Half the country still feels the election was stolen and Biden is illegitimate. This did nothing to address that or heal the country. It is more polarized than ever. In addition, the left now feels they have an open field to stomp our Civil Rights into the dirt.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Hillary Clinton: If GOP Senators Don’t Convict, It Proves That the Jury ‘Includes His Co-Conspirators’
5,903
NEW YORK, NY - FEBRUARY 16: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during an unveiling ceremony for the U.S. Postal Service Oscar de la Renta Forever stamp, at Grand Central Terminal, February 16, 2017 in New York City. A black and white stamp with De La Renta's portrait is …
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
HANNAH BLEAU10 Feb 20213,364

Twice failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sent a warning to Republican senators ahead of the first day of arguments in the Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump concluding that they — the jurors — will prove that they are “his co-conspirators” if they do not ultimately side with Democrats and convict him.

“If Senate Republicans fail to convict Donald Trump, it won’t be because the facts were with him or his lawyers mounted a competent defense,” Clinton said on Wednesday. “It will be because the jury includes his co-conspirators”:

Clinton also retweeted a video of the deceptively edited video presented by lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who promised to impeach Trump before the former president formally took office and, notably, objected to the certification of the 2016 election results in 2017.

“As Rep. Jamie Raskin said of Donald Trump inciting an insurrection as president: ‘If that’s not an impeachable offense, there is no such thing,’” Clinton said:

While the footage moved Democrat lawmakers and members of the establishment media in an emotional way, the cherry-picked footage gave the false impression Trump directly incited his supporters, encouraging them to commit lawless deeds and engage in acts of violence at the U.S. Capitol — a prominent left-wing assertion not based in fact.

Democrats conveniently omitted a key part of Trump’s January 6 speech in the video, where he told supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Former U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) posed a question on Tuesday, asking whether the selectively edited video broke House Rules focusing specifically on the “dissemination by electronic means, including by social media, of any image, video, or audio file that has been distorted or manipulated with the intent to mislead the public.”

Six GOP senators sided with Democrats on Tuesday, deeming the trial constitutional after hours of debate. Five of the votes came as no surprise, as they — Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ben Sasse (D-NE), and Pat Toomey (R-PA) — also sided with Democrats after Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) raised similar concerns over the constitutionality of the trial last month. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) joined them on Tuesday.

Opening arguments begin at noon.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Cruz: Impeachment ‘a Lot of Moralizing, Venting ‘Hatred for Donald Trump’

JEFF POOR10 Feb 2021263

During an appearance on the Fox News Channel on Tuesday,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) gave a critical take of the impeachment proceedings earlier in the day for both the Trump defense team and the House Democrat impeachment managers.

The Texas Republican lawmaker signified there was room for improvement for Trump’s defense but decried House managers’ impeachment effort as “moralizing” and venting of “hatred for Donald Trump.

“Well, there’s no doubt that lawyers could tighten it up some, but at the end of the day, I think today typified what we’re going to see this week, which it reminds me of Shakespeare,” he said. “It’s full of sound and fury signifying nothing. We’re going to see this week a whole lot of Democrats pounding the table. We’re going to see a lot of moralizing and a lot of really venting their hatred for Donald Trump. In case you haven’t been paying attention the last four years, the Democrats really, really hate Donald Trump, and they’re going to attack President Trump over and over again, every way they can. They’re going to bring in — you know, the idea that they’ve got — you know, Swalwell coming in.”

“I do hope he gives — gives some remarks on improving our relations with China. He has a novel approach to that,” Cruz continued. “But this is going to be just venting the id of the Democrats, and it’s going to end with failure. It is going to end with the president being acquitted. In order for the president to be convicted, it takes 67 votes in the U.S. Senate. That’s not going to happen. It’s not going to get 67 votes. It’s not going to get close to 67 votes. Every one of the 100 senators knows that. Every one of the House managers knows that. But this is political theater because rather than address the real problems, the real challenges we have in this country, rather than focused on getting kids back in school and getting tens of millions of Americans back to work, the Democrats want a week of just political theater raging at Donald Trump.”
 

AlfaMan

Has No Life - Lives on TB

House impeachment manager praises Pence: He 'showed us what it means to be an American'
"Vice President Pence stood his ground like our other brave officials stood their ground," Rep. Lieu said.

video on website .49 min

By Nicholas Ballasy
Updated: February 10, 2021 - 4:43pm

California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu, one of the House impeachment managers, on Wednesday praised former Vice President Mike Pence for certifying the presidential election results despite former President Trump's public criticism of Pence.

"Thankfully, Vice President Pence stood his ground like our other brave officials stood their ground to refuse the president and fulfill his duty on January 6, even after the capital was attacked and even after he was personally targeted, even after his family was targeted. Vice President Pence stood strong and certified the election," Lieu said when he presented on the second day of the impeachment trial.

"Vice President Pence showed us what it means to be an American, what it means to show courage. He put his country, his oath, his values and his morals above the will of one man. The president has tried everything in his power to seize seize, everything in his attempt to seize power from the rightful victor of election," he added.

During his presentation at the trial, Lieu played a clip of Trump saying he won't like Pence as much if he doesn't come through on Jan. 6 when the presidential election results were going to be counted during a joint session of Congress.

"I hope Mike Pence comes through for us. I have to tell you. I hope that our great vice president, our great vice president, comes through for us but he's a great guy. If he doesn't come through, I won't like him quite as much," Trump said on Jan. 5.

On Jan. 6, Trump said, "Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us and if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country."

[COMMENT: No, Mike Pence has his eye on the Presidency. Obviously he is affiliated with the establishment branch of the Repub Uni-Party. He likely felt he did not get the kudos he deserved for his COVID work and that Trump's proclivity for the economic side undermined and deflected from his message to "stop the spread." He needed to kick away from Trump to divorce himself from the loyal sidekick image. He seems a bitter little man and a back stabber, but, of course I never liked the guy.]
Mike Pence is a traitor. Period.
 

et2

TB Fanatic

Hillary Clinton: If GOP Senators Don’t Convict, It Proves That the Jury ‘Includes His Co-Conspirators’
5,903
NEW YORK, NY - FEBRUARY 16: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during an unveiling ceremony for the U.S. Postal Service Oscar de la Renta Forever stamp, at Grand Central Terminal, February 16, 2017 in New York City. A black and white stamp with De La Renta's portrait is …'s portrait is …
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
HANNAH BLEAU10 Feb 20213,364

Twice failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sent a warning to Republican senators ahead of the first day of arguments in the Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump concluding that they — the jurors — will prove that they are “his co-conspirators” if they do not ultimately side with Democrats and convict him.

“If Senate Republicans fail to convict Donald Trump, it won’t be because the facts were with him or his lawyers mounted a competent defense,” Clinton said on Wednesday. “It will be because the jury includes his co-conspirators”:

Clinton also retweeted a video of the deceptively edited video presented by lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who promised to impeach Trump before the former president formally took office and, notably, objected to the certification of the 2016 election results in 2017.

“As Rep. Jamie Raskin said of Donald Trump inciting an insurrection as president: ‘If that’s not an impeachable offense, there is no such thing,’” Clinton said:

While the footage moved Democrat lawmakers and members of the establishment media in an emotional way, the cherry-picked footage gave the false impression Trump directly incited his supporters, encouraging them to commit lawless deeds and engage in acts of violence at the U.S. Capitol — a prominent left-wing assertion not based in fact.

Democrats conveniently omitted a key part of Trump’s January 6 speech in the video, where he told supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Former U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) posed a question on Tuesday, asking whether the selectively edited video broke House Rules focusing specifically on the “dissemination by electronic means, including by social media, of any image, video, or audio file that has been distorted or manipulated with the intent to mislead the public.”

Six GOP senators sided with Democrats on Tuesday, deeming the trial constitutional after hours of debate. Five of the votes came as no surprise, as they — Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ben Sasse (D-NE), and Pat Toomey (R-PA) — also sided with Democrats after Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) raised similar concerns over the constitutionality of the trial last month. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) joined them on Tuesday.

Opening arguments begin at noon.

That old hag bitch can’t plant herself soon enough.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
More like the question is not under consideration, since it
conflicts with the DEMONcrat's carefully scripted and crafted narrative. No questions allowed.
 

Troke

On TB every waking moment
No Troke. The basic issue here was that the US Constitution places the making of law for election of the President with the State Legislatures. Over the years, some states, through process, delegated the authority of certifying electors to the Governor and Secretary of State in some cases.

In Wisconsin, for instance, the court ruled that about 200,000 (?) voters had claimed indefinitely confined states in contravention with the law. The legislature had suspended for the year and they couldn't get it back in special session to address the issue and alter the Electors.

The inability to get a special session called, (often requiring the Governor,) to change the electors was a common theme. As a result, the Republicans also sent a slate of official competing Electors to Congress.

In Georgia, you had the Senate Judiciary hearing hold hearings and made findings of fraud in a report. The Governor and Secretary of State had unconstitutionally changed the election law through a consent agreement in the Stacey Abrams suit. The Governor refused to call the legislature back in session to change the electors.

Most of these states sent competing electors. They wanted Pence to send the Electors back to the states, forcing a special session, so that the States could call a session and sort it out as the US Constitution prescribes.

What Ted Cruz was suggesting was a special committee, which had been used previously in history, to examine the issues of fraud and come up with recommendations.

What Pence did was run a bulldozer through it clearing a Biden win, despite the real evidence of massive fraud. What this does beyond the next 24 hours, is make it nearly impossible to correct the election fraud. (The Dems are ramming through an election bill that makes mail in etc. permanent.) Half the country still feels the election was stolen and Biden is illegitimate. This did nothing to address that or heal the country. It is more polarized than ever. In addition, the left now feels they have an open field to stomp our Civil Rights into the dirt.
I will try again. So Pence sets the precedent. Somewhere down the road, a Nancy Pelosi type VP decides that the Trump type landslide was fake and puts the Demo candidate in.

Now what?
 

Ractivist

Pride comes before the fall.....Pride month ended.
A m
Doesn't anybody on this forum ever think past the next 24 hours.? If Pence had done what Trump seems to have wanted, he would set the precedent that the VP decides who the next POTUS will be. You sure you want that?
A manufactured false flag riot alleviates Pence from contesting a stolen election, a coup......damn troke, fully outed bro.....
to answer your hypothesis, a precedent is now set to fold to the deep state machine. What do you want truckee?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Trump legal advice: Claim ‘the dog didn’t bark’

by Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Columnist |
| February 10, 2021 10:26 AM

If the basis of convicting former President Donald Trump in this week’s Senate impeachment trial is that his rally speech on Jan. 6 encouraged and incited the violence at the Capitol, then he might have a very simple defense — it didn’t, according to a top Washington lawyer.

And for proof, all Trump’s lawyers have to do is bring forward key law enforcement officials and have them testify that they saw and heard no signals of the coming violence during and after the speech given to a crowd near the White House.

Or, as George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf said, “The dog didn’t bark.”

In a memo today, he noted that the prosecution has suggested a “likelihood” of violence sparked by Trump’s speech. But, he added, there has been no evidence revealed by the police that the speech prompted any talk or internet chatter of the type of violence that followed and which many reports have said was planned long before Trump’s speech.

“That, of course, is a vital part of the legal standard since, if there wasn't a clear likelihood of violence at the time he spoke, his words — no matter how incendiary — would be protected by the First Amendment, even if they did, in fact, lead to violence, and even if the rioters believed, perhaps mistakenly, that Trump had commanded them to commit violence in his name,” said Banzhaf.

“Regardless of what initial evidence, e.g., internet ‘chatter,’ of possible violence at the Capitol may or may not have existed before Trump spoke, it appears that, like the famous Sherlock Holmes story in which a dog did not bark when he would have been expected to, law enforcement authorities apparently did not ‘bark,’ or otherwise warn about any likelihood of violence, during or immediately following his speech,” he added.

In Tuesday’s opening of the Senate session, Democrats played a video that artfully implied the Capitol attackers reacted to Trump’s dog whistle.

But the professor said that’s not enough because law enforcement didn’t see any reaction and did little to reinforce the Capitol.

“So, if law enforcement officials, trained to assess threats and the likelihood of violence, did not send out new warnings of imminent violence immediately following Trump's speech, especially in light of ‘chatter’ and other warnings beforehand, it could be very persuasive evidence that, despite whatever words and phrases Trump used, they did not create a likelihood of violence to those in the best position to assess it at the time,” wrote Banzhaf.

Proving that would simply require police in charge at the time to testify.

“Trump's defense team might call, as witnesses, those law enforcement authorities, and ask them to explain why, if there was a significant likelihood of imminent violence growing out of Trump's speech, they apparently issued no new alerts,” he suggested.

And he parsed the legal requirement of a “likelihood” of violence, which law enforcement apparently didn’t see during Trump’s speech.

“In other words, even if evidence shows that Trump's statements did, in fact, cause a riot which subsequently occurred, and even if the evidence shows that he did have an intent to cause the violence, the legal requirement that ‘there [was] LIKELIHOOD that such violence will ensue’ at the time he spoke is separate and distinct, and is susceptible of being disproved by the lack of warnings issued at the time — similar to the dog which didn't bark,” said Banzhaf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bev

marsh

On TB every waking moment
I will try again. So Pence sets the precedent. Somewhere down the road, a Nancy Pelosi type VP decides that the Trump type landslide was fake and puts the Demo candidate in.

Now what?
No, Pence would have "set the precedent" for sending the question back to the states to clean up irregularities and decide as is its duty according to the Constitution. Pence, himself, would not have decided. Legislatures from several states requested this because they disagreed with the Governor's decision and needed the Congressional request to open a special session without Governor's approval.
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

parocan

Veteran Member
WATCH: House Impeachment Managers Forced to Withdraw Evidence in Case Against Trump After Senator Mike Lee Says It Is False
WATCH: House Impeachment Managers Forced to Withdraw Evidence in Case Against Trump After Senator Mike Lee Says It Is False

The House impeachment managers on Wednesday were forced to withdraw evidence in their case against Donald Trump after Senator Mike Lee said it was not accurate.
The impeachment managers claimed on the night of January 6, Trump called Senator Mike Lee in the Capitol mistakenly believing he was talking to Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville.
“He dialed Senator Lee by accident, and Senator Lee describes it that he had just ended a prayer in the Senate chamber,” said impeachment manager David Cicilline (D-RI).

Rep. Cicilline claimed that Trump asked Tuberville to “make further objections” to Biden’s electors as Senator Lee “stood by.” Mike Lee went off on the lying impeachment managers for attributing a false quote to him.
“Statements attributed to me moments ago by the impeachment managers, statements relating to the contents of the conversations between phone calls involving Trump and Senator Tuberville, were not made by me, were not accurate,” Senator Lee said.

Lead impeachment manager and serial liar Rep. Raskin admitted that his Democrat cohorts had been peddling fake news and agreed to withdraw the quote.
Senator Lee shouted at Raskin as he tried to excuse the lies spewed by the impeachment managers.
Rep. Eric Swalwell also got caught using a photoshopped tweet at the impeachment trial on Wednesday.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Episode 721 - Get in the DeLorean (w/ Dr. Peter Navarro, Natalie Winters) 49:00 min

war room.JPG
[COMMENT: Interesting discussion about the Impeachment with Dr. Peter Navarro. The riot actually hurt Trump. It was timed to disrupt the objections to the Electors and the two hour discussions of the evidence for each state. It deflated the balloon and gave cover to many of the Reps and Senators who had indicated they would object to switch to the other side. (Example the Georgia Senator.]
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

BUSTED! Eric Swalwell Caught Using Photoshopped Tweet at Impeachment Trial #FakeNews

By Jim Hoft
Published February 10, 2021 at 9:20pm
swalwell-caught-2-.jpg


If they’re not cheating, they’re lying.

House Impeachment Manager Eric Swalwell gave a riveting performance on Wednesday reading off Trump’s tweets with emotional appeal.

During this theatrical performance, Swalwell read off a Trump retweet by Jennifer Lynn Lawrence.

trump-tweet-1-1.jpg


But there was one problem with the tweet.
It was photoshopped.

Jennifer Lynn Lawrence has never been verified by Twitter.

Democrats faked that to make it look more important.


Dustin Stockton has more.

Wow.
jennifer-lynn-lawrence.jpg
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Alan Dershowitz Discusses the Unconstitutional Impeachment and How the Democrats “Prove President Trump’s Constitutional Defense”

By Joe Hoft
Published February 10, 2021 at 7:10pm
Dershowitz-on-Newsmax.jpg

Alan Dershowitz was on Newsmax and he discussed the unconstitutional impeachment circus that is currently going on in Washington DC.

Dershowitz claims the whole circus is unconstitutional and he says the Democrats are making the President’s case:
In laying out a long-running objection to election fraud by former President Donald Trump, House impeachment managers are effectively making the case for the defense because the speech under the microscope is protected, even if they disagree with it, according to constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax TV.
“Very good theater, terrible constitutional law,” Dershowitz told “The Chris Salcedo Show” of the House Democrats’ opening statements Wednesday.

“The videos make good theater; they’re very riveting,” the noted legal scholar said. “”But they prove President Trump’s constitutional defense.”
Dershowitz claims this whole theater is unconstitutional. Americans agree. The Democrats have disregarded the constitution again in an effort to cover up their numerous criminal acts in stealing the 2020 election. This whole effort is fooling no one but the Republican Senators.

See the video below:

Rumble video on website 6 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Here’s Why The Sham Impeachment Trial Is Clearly Unconstitutional
by Jonathan Davis

5ff84df5b1b2fTrump-15-scaled-1-758x427.jpg


The second sham impeachment of now-former President Donald Trump has begun and it’s already shaping up to be as big of a clown show as the first one was.

Not only does it come at a time when Congress should instead be focusing on the lingering pandemic, a sputtering economy, tens of millions of Americans still unemployed or underemployed, new migrant caravans heading to our southern border, a China-Mexican cartel alliance pumping fentanyl into Middle America and killing thousands, but it’s also clearly unconstitutional.

Julie Strauss Levin, writing in the Virginia Star, makes this clear:

President Trump’s attorneys have clearly responded to the absurd Article of Impeachment. Their answer on Trump’s behalf is clear and straightforward.

Put simply, and a plain reading of the Constitution by any grade school student will corroborate, you can’t remove someone from office who is not in office. And, the word “and” means just that: in order to be disqualified from holding office, a person needs to first be in office, then removed and then disqualified from holding office in the future. In other words, you can’t be disqualified if you weren’t in office at the time of the impeachment. What part of “and” does the Democrat party not understand?

And then there is the matter of Chief Justice Roberts declining to preside over the trial. The text of the Constitution is abundantly clear at Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution that when a president is being tried for impeachment, “the Chief Justice shall preside…” (emphasis added)

Instead, Patrick Leahy, who just happens to be the longest serving member of the Senate (Exhibit 1 for term limits) and is a Democrat will preside. Details, details.


That should have clearly been the issue that was presented by Trump’s attorneys. But it wasn’t.

Instead, one of them, Bruce Castor, came out ‘swinging’ — for the Democrats, which reportedly infuriated his client/boss, the former president.

In fact, he did so poorly that even Republican senators criticized him, with one — Sen. Bill Cassidy of Lousiana — basing his decision to support the contention that the trial is even constitutional because of Castor’s crappy argument.

“Anyone who listened to President Trump’s legal team saw they were unfocused, they attempted to avoid the issue. And they talked about everything but the issue at hand,” Cassidy, who was summarily raked over the coals by the Lousiana Republican Party for his vote, said.

“I thought the President’s lawyer, the first lawyer, just rambled on and on and on and didn’t really address the constitutional argument,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn added.

At least he wasn’t ‘persuaded’ to change his vote and support the constitutionality question.

Nevertheless, despite the rocky start, it’s not like the Senate is going to spend a lot of time on this because a) Democrats don’t have the votes to convict Trump; b) it won’t be constitutional anyway; and c) they have other more important business pending.

“While Republicans have repeatedly said that the trial is unconstitutional and bad for the country, Democrats are eager to finish confirming President Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees and pass his $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package before mid-March, when unemployment benefits are set to expire,” The Daily Caller reported.

Bottom line: Spending even a minute on this nonsense is a disgrace, and it’s why Congress’ approval rating continues tanking.
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

“Not Guilty Vote Is Growing”- Lindsey Graham Destroys Dem Impeachment Sham

Published on : Published by : Jacob Palmieri

1153-1.png


We have more good news on the sham Dem impeachment front.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on Hannity and destroyed the impeachment.

He not only said most Republicans view it as “offensive and absurd” but he also claimed that the vote to acquit Trump is growing.
Lindsey Graham tells Hannity “the not guilty vote is growing after today” and adds that he thinks most Republicans found the presentation by the House Managers “offensive and absurd” pic.twitter.com/rZ9N3tOUay
— TV News HQ (@TVNewsHQ) February 11, 2021

From Breitbart:
Let me tell your viewers: the “not guilty” vote is growing after today. I think most Republicans found the presentation by the House managers offensive and absurd. We all know what happened at the Capitol was terrible. I hope everybody involved that broke into the Capitol goes to jail. But I don’t remember any of the House managers saying a damn thing when they were trying to break into my house and going after [Republican Senator] Susan Collins [of Maine] and spitting on all of us. If this is a problem for a politician to give the speech that President Trump did, well, then [Vice President] Kamala Harris has a real problem, because she actively engaged in bailing out rioters. And here is what I would suggest. if you are a politician trying to raise bail for people accused of rioting, you are inciting more riots. But here’s something that nobody talked about that is important. If there was preplanning, there was no incitement. … The managers have got this cockamamie idea absurd theory that Donald Trump wa monitoring the Proud Boys’ website, and other far right websites, and that he and [former White House social media manager] Dan Scavino knew this was going to happen and they encouraged it. That is Looney Tunes. And you know why they are saying that? Because if the president didn’t know, and it was actually preplanned, he is not guilty. So for the first time today, they are trying to create a storyline that Donald Trump was in on it before it happened, that he was monitoring the proud boys and other crazy websites and he knew they were come to Washington with violence on their mind, and he encouraged it. That beyond bizarre. This is not evidence. This is a liberal democratic novel being presented as evidence.
This whole impeachment has been an embarrassment.

The only things the Democrats have are lies and falsehoods and they are using both to attack Trump.

We know what the real reason they are pushing impeachment is.

They are scared of Trump.

It will be interesting to see who these new “not guilty votes” are.

Will any Democrats vote not guilty?

I doubt it.

Lindsey Graham is likely talking about some of the weak-kneed Republicans who voted to have this in the first place.

When Trump is acquitted Democrats will only have succeeded in wasting money, time, and further dividing the country.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

WATCH: Swalwell Shows CONVENIENTLY-EDITED Video Showing Schumer’s “Near Miss” With Protesters

by Frank Bojaziabout 5 hours ago

Chuck Schumer Running Security


On Wednesday, Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell spoke during former President Trump’s second impeachment trial when he began playing a newly revealed video of Senator Chuck Schumer running through the halls of the Capitol with his security detail.

However, it might have completely backfired on Democrats after what what the video reveals.

The security video, which comes from inside the Capitol was not shown to the public before today.

It was only then that Democrats revealed what they thought might be the ultimate weapon to take down Trump, but as we see in the video – that may not be as convincing as they believe after readers see what’s at the end of the video.

The footage shows Chuck Schumer and several members of his security team moving down a hallway. They abruptly make an about-face and head back in the direction from which they were came from.

They run back towards the door, go through the door, and members of security then stand guard at the door.

This is about where the video stops playing. The Democrats apparently want the audience to believe Chuck Schumer and his team might have had a close call, a “near-miss” per se – but many now speculate that it might not be as close as they suggested.

Many want to know, why was the video cut short? A lot of questions, but where are the answers?

The Hill reported on Schumer’s version of the story when he was interviewed by Rachel Maddow:
During an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow late last month, Schumer described arriving to the Senate floor at 1 p.m. and soon after being told by a police officer that he was in danger and had to evacuate.
“I was 30 feet away from those sons of guns,” Schumer said. “Thirty feet away from these nasty, racist, bigoted insurrectionists.”
Other scenes displayed by the footage include the rioters overwhelming police officers and charging through barricades. In previously unreleased audio, a Capitol Police officer can be heard calling for help shouting, “They’re throwing metal poles at us.”
Here’s the video of Chuck Schumer running with security for everyone to watch and create their own opinion on his alleged close call at the Capitol.

WATCH:

View: https://youtu.be/myGfzT971wM
1:04 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Democrat Accused Of Manipulating Evidence In Impeachment Trial

Published on : Published by : Jacob Palmieri


1152.jpg


What a bombshell.

According to a Twitter user, Jennifer Lynn Lawerence Democrats added a verification badge to her tweet.
I’ve never been verified on Twitter so why did my Tweet used in the fact-free impeachment include a verification badge? I’m assuming Democrats faked it like they are faking the whole case. @RepSwalwell why did you add a verified badge to my tweet in your presentation? pic.twitter.com/9Ww0TLveNA
— Jennifer Lynn Lawrence (@JenLawrence21) February 10, 2021
It seems to have been confirmed.
Fact check: true.
She didn’t have a blue check on January 6 2021 or back in October. The impeachment managers really did add that.https://t.co/D5InaAcEH5Dustin Stockton pic.twitter.com/PRBbgXGsH3
— Captain Conundrum (@CptConundrum20) February 11, 2021
Why is this a big deal?

Well, adding a verification badge makes it seem like the Twitter user is someone who is a public figure.

It would mean more if their evidence was from a verified user rather than just an everyday person.

Here is the video from the impeachment trial:
When your Twitter posts make it into the impeachment trial. One question for @RepSwalwell are you being removed for banging a known CCP spy? #ImpeachmentTrial pic.twitter.com/nx6zocsPCr
— Jennifer Lynn Lawrence (@JenLawrence21) February 10, 2021
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

How Trump impeachment lawyer David Schoen was observing an orthodox Jewish ritual when he covered his head each time he drank water during opening arguments
  • Trump lawyer David Schoen caused confusion on social media during his opening argument at Tuesday's impeachment trial
  • Viewers questioned why he placed his hand on his head as he drank water
  • Schoen was likely observing an Orthodox Jewish ritual that requires a blessing before eating and drinking that includes God's name
  • According to Jewish law, your head should always be covered when you say God's name
  • Some social media users were angered over the jokes about the ritual
  • Others questioned whether Schoen was following the ritual correctly
By FRANCES MULRANEY FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 09:36 EST, 10 February 2021 | UPDATED: 10:50 EST, 10 February 2021

Trump lawyer David Schoen caused confusion on social media during Tuesday's impeachment trial as he appeared to cover his head with his hand every time he took a sip of water.

As Schoen made his opening argument that Trump's second impeachment trial is unconstitutional, bemused viewers questioned the unusual drinking habit.

Yet Schoen was likely displaying a ritual observed by Orthodox Jews in which they must say a blessing before eating and drinking that includes God's name.

According to Jewish law, known as halacha, your head should always be covered when you say God's name.

'Each time we eat or drink something we say a blessing to thank God and we cover our head, typically with a yarmulke, to show respect and to acknowledge that there's someone above us,' Rabbi Menachem Genack, CEO of the kosher division of the Orthodox Union explained to the New York Post.

'Since he wasn't wearing a yarmulke, he wanted to at least cover his head with his hand.'
Trump lawyer David Schoen caused confusion during Tuesday's impeachment trial as he appeared to cover his head with his hand every time he took a sip of water. He observed the ritual as it is part of Jewish law to cover your head when you say a blessing using God's name


Trump lawyer David Schoen caused confusion during Tuesday's impeachment trial as he appeared to cover his head with his hand every time he took a sip of water. He observed the ritual as it is part of Jewish law to cover your head when you say a blessing using God's name

Viewers were quick to question why Schoen was placing his hand on his head


Viewers were quick to question why Schoen was placing his hand on his head
Others were angered that the Jewish ritual was being mocked


Others were angered that the Jewish ritual was being mocked
'Don't be jerks', one Twitter user wrote as they fired back at the jokes


'Don't be jerks', one Twitter user wrote as they fired back at the jokes
Schoen covers his head while drinking water for orthodox ritual

Schoen was later asked why he didn't wear a yarmulke (otherwise known as a kippah) or another head covering during the trial.

The Post reports that Schoen wore a kippah into the Capitol building but chose not to do so on the Senate floor.

According to The Jerusalem Post, Schoen said he 'wasn't sure if it was appropriate'.

'I didn't want to offend anyone… It's just an awkward thing and people stare at it.'

The Jerusalem Post reports that in some work situations, Orthodox men elect not to wear a head covering for fear of discrimination.

The publication highlights a court room setting, in particular, where there could be fears of antisemitism from jury members, judges, or members of the public.

Head coverings are generally banned in the Senate, but it has an exception for religious requirements.

The 181-year ban was overturned in 2019 after a push from Rep. Ilhan Omar and other interfaith groups.

Schoen's religion had already come up as part of the impeachment trial after he asked – and then withdrew his request – for it to be paused in observance of the Jewish Sabbath.

Yet even observant Jews remained confused on Tuesday at the consistent placing of his hand on his head before taking a drink.

Religious law only requires a blessing before one's first bite and after eating and drinking, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Most Orthodox interpretations of the law also don't allow for your hand to be used as a head covering.
Schoen was seen throughout his opening statement hold his hand on his head as he drank


Schoen was seen throughout his opening statement hold his hand on his head as he drank
Some observed on Twitter that your hand is not generally accepted as a head covering


Some observed on Twitter that your hand is not generally accepted as a head covering

'I don't think he was saying a blessing. It's a pavlovian reaction for those of us who are used to doing it whenever we tilt our heads back,' explained one Twitter user.

'Otherwise, he wouldn't do it every-time he takes a sip. He'd only need to do it the first time.'

'Like most things in Judaism, there's a debate about whether or not one's own hand counts as a "covering" for this purpose, whether or not women are also obligated, if water actually requires a blessing,' added Laura Adkins, a journalist with Jewish News.

Their explanations came after jokes at Schoen's expense hit Twitter, including one from Mary Trump.

'He can raise his voice and hold the top of his head all he wants, he has no idea what he's talking about,' the ex-president's niece wrote.

Others were angered that many on Twitter were joking about the ritual.
Some were angered that many on Twitter were joking about the ritual


Some were angered that many on Twitter were joking about the ritual
Mary Trump was among those to mock the Orthodox Jewish ritual


Mary Trump was among those to mock the Orthodox Jewish ritual
'It is Jewish ritual, not an odd behavior to be mocked,' said a tweet from Bend the Arc: Jewish Action.

'David Schoen is an Orthodox Jew. He covers his head when drinking water because that's what many observant Jews do,' wrote Avi Mayer.

'It is generally followed by the recitation of a blessing and is an expression of religiosity. Don't be jerks.'

'Schoen is a religious Jew. There are a couple non-mockery-worthy reasons why he might've done this,' added CNN reporter Daniel Dale.

'It's like Twitter just learned about Orthodox Jews today,' wrote another user Sara Pearl.

The Senate voted largely along party lines on Tuesday to move ahead with Trump's impeachment trial, but conviction appears unlikely barring a major shift among Republicans.

During his opening statement, Schoen argued that the trial is unconstitutional, and that Democrats are simply 'seeking to eliminate Donald Trump from the American political scene' because of their 'base hatred' for the ex-president.
David Schoen, lawyer for former President Donald Trump, is pictured on Tuesday wearing a Kippah as he entered the Capitol. He did not wear the head covering on the Senate floor


David Schoen, lawyer for former President Donald Trump, is pictured on Tuesday wearing a Kippah as he entered the Capitol. He did not wear the head covering on the Senate floor
David Schoen, an attorney for Donald Trump, speaks during the second impeachment trial of former President on Tuesday as he argued that the trial is unconstitutional


David Schoen, an attorney for Donald Trump, speaks during the second impeachment trial of former President on Tuesday as he argued that the trial is unconstitutional

'This trial will tear this country apart, perhaps like we've only seen once before in our history,' he said, appearing to reference the Civil War.
'It is wrong, as wrong can be for all of us as a nation.'

He denounced the 'insatiable lust for impeachment' among Democrats before airing a video, which stitched together clips of various Democratic lawmakers calling for Trump's impeachment going back to 2017.

Schoen also blasted the 14-minute video shown by Democrats in the opening of the trial which showed the violent pro-Trump mob storming the U.S. Capitol on January 6, cut alongside parts of Trump's speech from earlier that day.

'We now learn that the House managers in their wisdom have hired a movie company and a large law firm to create, manufacture and splice for you a package designed by experts to chill and horrify you and our fellow Americans,' he said.

'They don't need to show you movies to show you that the riot happened here. We will stipulate that it happened, and you know all about it. This is a process fueled irresponsibly by base hatred by these House managers.'
Trump's lawyer David Schoen accuses Dems of 'weaponizing' impeachment

The Senate voted 56-44 to proceed to the first-ever trial of a former president, rejecting his defense lawyers' argument that Trump was beyond the reach of the Senate after having left the White House on January 20.

Democrats hope to disqualify Trump from ever again holding public office, but Tuesday's outcome suggested they face long odds. Only six Republican senators joined Democrats to vote in favor of allowing the trial to take place, far short of the 17 needed to secure a conviction.

Convicting Trump would require a two-thirds majority in the 50-50 Senate.

The vote capped a dramatic day in the Senate chamber. Democratic lawmakers serving as prosecutors opened the trial with a graphic video interspersing images of the January 6 Capitol violence with clips of Trump's incendiary speech to a crowd of supporters earlier in the day urging them to 'fight like hell' to overturn his November 3 election defeat.

Senators, serving as jurors, watched as screens showed Trump's followers throwing down barriers and hitting police officers at the Capitol.

The video included the moment police guarding the House of Representatives chamber fatally shot protester Ashli Babbitt, one of five people including a police officer who died in the rampage.

The mob attacked police, sent lawmakers scrambling for safety and interrupted the formal congressional certification of President Joe Biden's victory after Trump had spent two months challenging the election results based on false claims of widespread voting fraud.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Can Trump change the rules and hire Jim Jordan as his Senate lawyer…
Posted by Kane on February 11, 2021 12:17 am

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1359690245181239296
1:52 min

Jordan was fantastic tonight on Hannity. Here’s a short highlight.

Here’s the full interview, including Devin Nunes

View: https://youtu.be/HHJp5SEJMgU
7:03 min

Bonus clip from Jordan and Stuart Varney this afternoon

View: https://youtu.be/BCtiwIg1S8I
.45 min
 

Troke

On TB every waking moment
A m

A manufactured false flag riot alleviates Pence from contesting a stolen election, a coup......damn troke, fully outed bro.....
to answer your hypothesis, a precedent is now set to fold to the deep state machine. What do you want truckee?
Too bad. No good answer. I agree that Trump won the election. But hypothetical, GOP wins, Demo VP throws it back to the States which happen to have a majority Demo legislatures...care to guess what might happen?

I stated in an OP some time ago that Trump completely and totally botched his response to the election even though there was max evidence beforehand it would be stolen. He did nothing until it was too late. Throwing the whole thing on Pence was a bit much as we have seen. And we are living with that.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9lQYhISUaw
LIVE

LIVE: President Trump Impeachment Trial: Day 3

•Started streaming 2 hours ago


Right Side Broadcasting Network


NOTE: We're offering this coverage because it's important the people hear President Trump's defense! We obviously do not support impeaching our great 45th President. Thursday, February 11, 2021: President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial will resume in the Senate on Thursday
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Democrats Start Off Thursday Impeachment Hearing Presenting Photos of Noted Trump-Hater and Yang Supporter Baked Alaska as Trump Supporter

By Jim Hoft
Published February 11, 2021 at 11:59am

President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial resumed in the US Senate on Thuesday.

Democrats are using their time to smear all Trump supporters as terrorists.
It’s as if Black Lives Matter and Antifa never existed!

And Democrats are using video from Antifa operatives INSIDE THE US CAPITOL on January 6th. But whatever.


On Thursday Democrats proudly displayed photos of activist “Baked Alaska” inside Pelosi’s office on January 6th.
baked-alaska-trump-hater.jpg


Tim Gionet, better known online as ‘Baked Alaska’ and a former Buzzfeed employee, was arrested in January for illegally entering the US Capitol building on January 6th.

Baked Alaska was charged by the FBI for “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority” and “violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds,” according to criminal complaint obtained by The Scoop.

The former Buzzfeed video creator live-streamed himself inside the Capitol on DLive, a popular streaming platform.

Although Buzzfeed is aggressively trying to distance itself from their past connection to Baked Alaska by labeling him a “far-right troll” and a “right-wing extremist,” Baked Alaska endorsed far-left Democrat Andrew Yang for President in 2019, and even filmed a rap music video for a song called “Yang Gang Anthem” that he made about Andrew Yang.

This is who Democrats are using to represent a Trump voter at the sham impeachment trial today.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Someone Tell President Trump’s Attorneys – The Democrats’ Footage Showing Violence at the Capitol on January 6th Was Filmed by Antifa

By Joe Hoft
Published February 11, 2021 at 8:00am
House-Dems-Use-Antifa-Footage.jpg

Someone, please tell President Trump’s attorneys that the main evidence used by the Democrats to prove violence at the Capitol on January 6th comes from Antifa.

On Tuesday the Democrats in the House pled their case that President Trump should be impeached because he was behind the violence at the Capitol on January 6th. In their opening remarks they shared this shocking video of the actions that day in the Capitol:


Of course, the Democrats removed the President’s remarks where he told his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard.”

But what the Democrats also neglected to point out is that the video that they used comes from Antifa. The Democrats want to blame the entire mess inside the Capitol on President Trump and his followers but the facts show the violence was led by the Democrat connected violent group known as Antifa.

Throughout the Democrats’ video from their opening statement they use video footage from Jayden X. This video was filmed by a man named John Sullivan who is a member of Antifa.

Sullivan organized an Antifa event at the Capitol that very day. Then embed himself in with these violent hoodlums in the Capital and filmed their destruction:


Sullivan was later on CNN with a photojournalist who was at the Capitol and they described the events in the Capitol that day. They of course didn’t discuss with CNN that they were cheering each other on and saying “We done it!” while inside the Capitol.


Sullivan even bragged about dressing as a Trump supporter at the Capitol:


And to no one’s surprise there is video footage of Sullivan training Antifa soldiers and selling riot equipment at his website:


We’ve reported on other who appear to be members of Antifa who were at the Capitol that day. Sullivan wasn’t the only Antifa member at the Capitol:


The Democrats’ primary source for information showing President Trump and his supporters rioting in the Capitol comes from Antifa.
Hat tip Alphamail
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

REMINDER: Kamala Harris Joked About Killing President Trump and Then Let Out a Horrible Cackle – Is This Impeachable?

By Joe Hoft
Published February 11, 2021 at 7:45am
kamala-harris-for-feb.-9.jpg

Oh, the horror.

The Democrats are parsing President Trump’s words in their effort to impeach him and hide the real story, that they criminally stole the 2020 Presidential election.

But very few Americans are interested and most are outraged since the majority appear to have voted for President Trump. Americans have watched as our country and Constitution have been torn apart by Democrats, with Republican consent, over the past decade. No one liked Obama’s policies which is why America voted for President Trump. Americans loved President Trump’s policies and economy which is why they voted for him in record numbers.

But the Democrats were done with elections and so they stole it. Next, they attempted to impeach him in an unconstitutional effort to keep him from running in the future after the world uncovers their criminal deeds in stealing the 2020 election.

In this effort, they have such a week and embarrassing case that they are parsing his words and tweets in an effort to attempt to build their case. But what they haven’t considered is that if their rules are applied across the board individuals like Kamala Harris should be impeached.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1359599423635021829
.19 min

If not impeached for threatening the President, she should be impeached for the cackle.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Wretched Murkowski: “I Don’t See How Donald Trump Could be Re-Elected to the Presidency Again”

By Jim Hoft
Published February 11, 2021 at 8:30am
1613074169069.png
This woman is the worst.

“Republican” Lisa Murkowski spoke out against President Donald Trump more than any Democrat in her career. She fought his America First agenda every step of the way.

On Wednesday Murkowski told reporters, “I don’t see how Donald Trump could ever be re-elected to the presidency again.”

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1359643571872235520
.41 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

"Feel Our Pain", Politicians Insist

THURSDAY, FEB 11, 2021 - 12:51
Authored by Michael Tracey via Medium.com,

Congress is increasingly not a place where the average member partakes in what’s generally understood as legislative activity, but rather engages in a variety of elaborate self-promotional exercises. The diminishment in the power of average House Members (as opposed to Party leaders who run their respective caucuses like fiefdoms) has been amply documented. One consequence of this trend is that “comms” has become far more of an all-consuming focus for a certain type of Member, particularly those who are most adept at social media.


One “comms” strategy that appears highly effective at the moment in generating outsized public attention is extreme, heavily-personalized emotional exuberance. With the “trauma” of the MAGA goofball mob intrusion still apparently dominating their psyches, members of Congress have taken it as a solemn duty to claim “space” for the “sharing” of their “lived experience” relating to this event.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a true pioneer in importing the rhetoric of therapeutic trauma jargon, already the lingua franca of an ascendant activism-minded cultural and media cohort, into the mainstream of the Democratic Party. At her direction, it will only become more ubiquitous. And given that such rhetoric deliberately inverts the normal epistemology of contested political claims — it’s deemed incumbent on the listener not to critically evaluate the veracity of such claims, but instead uncritically believe them — the new mode of public argument she’s popularizing is likely to prove highly effective, as it inherently forecloses the prospect of any argument at all. Per this framework, arguments are replaced with subjective assertions that must be presumptively accepted, lest one be guilty of “minimizing” or “belittling” the elected official’s experiences and thus compounding their trauma.

Jamie Raskin, the Democrats’ lead impeachment manager, took a page from this playbook during the opening presentation of Donald Trump’s trial Monday, breaking down in tears at one point as he wove a narrative about the terror of January 6 with his own personal turmoil. Raskin’s son died on December 31, and the pain he felt from that experience was integrated seamlessly with the pain that he posited all members of Congress must have felt during the goofball riot.

Of course, everyone who’s not a psychopath would sympathize with Raskin for having lost a son to suicide. But to invoke this tragedy in the context of an impeachment trial has an obvious political intent. The intent was to heighten the emotional resonance of the prosecution’s case for convicting Trump, as according to Raskin, he feared that his daughter might also face untimely death because she happened to be in the Capitol with him on January 6. The more intense the “pain” that can be conveyed to the juror-senators, the more likely they are to vote to convict Trump — or so the calculation seemingly goes.

Fellow impeachment manager David Cicilline charged that every single member of Congress nearly avoided being slaughtered in a mass execution-style attack that day — “They could have killed all of us,” he said — although no real evidence has ever been presented to substantiate this dramatic theory, which seems only to be professed by partisan Democrats. A number of basic facts stemming from the Capitol intrusion which could provide clarity are still mysteriously absent from the public record, such as whether any of the rioters brandished or discharged firearms. You’d think this would be helpful information to know before proclaiming, as Cicilline did, that what occurred was an “armed insurrection.” It would be a very curious “armed insurrection” for no firearms to have been deployed over the course of the “insurrection.”

Raskin, Cicilline, and AOC are all politicians fulfilling a political purpose, but the style of rhetoric they increasingly make use of is designed to obscure that role. They are to be regarded principally as victims, as opposed to public officials who wield state power — and as such their political aims must be supported because if you don’t, you are maliciously exacerbating their victimization.

Bill Clinton once famously exhorted, I feel your pain.” The rising breed of contemporary politicians appear more inclined to “share” their own “pain,” and then exhort us to feel it.
 

Blacknarwhal

Let's Go Brandon!
I will try again. So Pence sets the precedent. Somewhere down the road, a Nancy Pelosi type VP decides that the Trump type landslide was fake and puts the Demo candidate in.

Now what?

As opposed to today's version, where voting machine operators do the picking and whoever's vice president just rolls over and accepts it.
 
Top